r the controversy over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, which mushroomed into a national crisis after blogger Pam Geller captured the media's attention despite having a tiny audience and a propensity to compare Muslim-tolerant Jews to Nazi sympathizers or suggest that critical journalists are training to be suicide bombers. If the media hadn't paid attention to them, would they have mattered?

So what can be done to break this feedback loop?

The media could actually do their jobs and report on what people do and say. Rather than refer to Pamela geller as an "anti-jihad blogger" (oh how goddamn brave you are), or a "conservative activist", she could be described as someone who compares her opponents to Nazis and who thinks Obama is Malcolm X's son.

Michele Bachmann could be referred to as the woman who thinks most liberal organizations should be investigated for anti-American activities, rather than "conservative firebrand" or "congressional ally to the Tea Party movement".

douchebag/hater:Well, there are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims and so far the bad Muslims are winning.

What's a bad Muslim? The ones that want to kill anyone who doesn't believe in Mohammed.

So all of you apologists who think that all Muslims are 'good and decent': Fark you, you're an idiot.

Actually, what I think I was doing was illustrating that some Muslims are in fact US citizens. Some of whom even serve the nation and have even given their lives in that service. By your "good/bad Muslim" metric, I think I was illustrating the point that Muslims aren't some nebulous outre grouping that is foreign or innately hostile, but often our own neighbors.

The "bad" Muslims that have your knickers in a twist, it might be worth mentioning, are reacting not just the calls to Jihad, but years of some odd treatment by the West. Not just by Israel. Not just support of the Taliban in Afghanistan when it served our interests to support them against the Soviets, and then abandoned to sort out their own government in a land that hasn't seen a cohesive government, pretty much since the days of Alexander, and even then it was sort of iffy. You want to look at how things fell apart you might want to look at Iran. Before the rise of the Ayatollahs.

Iran had one of the most progressive and democratic governments in the 50s of any Middle Eastern nation. It was a prize in both educated populace and very much an ally in the region. Until they made the mistake of nationalizing their oil fields, and that meant bringing back the Shah. Which was done by the West. We helped tear down one of the most democratic governments in the Middle East because BP profits were threatened. Not terrorists. Their legitimate government. The Shah's crackdown led directly to the rise of Fundamentalist movements to oppose the regime, and the Ayatollah Khomeini became a focus for many who wanted their nation back. When the Shah was forced to leave again, we backed him, as opposed to the populist uprising, and without any support or any input from the West, we pretty much lost any ability to influence their government or their support of causes that opposed not just Israel but Western influence throughout the region. Our support of Iraq, and oddly enough, that goofy Saddam BECAUSE he had beef with Iran, sort of colored a lot of folks' thinking about the West as well. Not to mention our blanket support of Israel, without much thought that some folks might sympathize with the Palestinians.

Therein lies the rub. It's not about "good" Muslims or "bad" Muslims, but a LOT of folks who have legitimate beef with how we've conducted policy in the region for generations. When Iran was having their "Green Revolution" there was a LOT of support here. Why? Because we were hopeful that the Fundamentalist elements might lose their grip a bit on the nation, and that the Persian people might have a nation returned to some semblance of sanity. Sort of how we have some hope that the Afghan people might be able to avoid the cycle of internecine violence that has rocked their nation for generations as well.

The thing is: when folks voice ire about the US and US backed efforts in the Middle East, there are a lot of folks who look upon it with more than just a small amount of suspicion. Not because they don't know what they're missing, but from bitter experience. The blowback from Middle East policy since WWII has bred a lot of animosity, and understanding that animosity, and understanding the mistakes that were made isn't so much thinking that all Muslims are good and decent, but recognizing that if we are to put to rest the cycles of violence, we have to recognize where the animosity comes from. And recognize that not all Muslims are Fundamentalist asshats who see violence as a solution. Not all Muslims see takfir--the declaration of Infidelhood--as being a legitimate means to silence opposition. Heck, MOST Muslims don't even live in the Middle East. Understanding that is perhaps something to chew upon. Only about 40% of Muslims live in the Middle East. A good chunk, and the melding of faith and nationalism is what has given many Fundamentalists power, but that is power that the West has sort of thrust upon them, as these Fundamentalists are often seen as the only folks who had the courage to stand up to the West, other than a round of weak letters from the UN.

Understanding the nature of these conflicts is perhaps hard. Understanding that the OTHER People of the Book hold the Middle East as holy as Jews and Christians is sort of important. Understanding that Muslim Fundamentalists have twisted the Koran about as far as they could possibly do, and equally screwy as Fundamentalist Christians who want homo hunting licenses and to bring about the End of Days to SAVE God's Chosen People is sort of important as well. Understanding the beauty and solace that many find in the Koran is sort of important. Understanding that many modern Muslims are trying to reconcile the teachings of their faith, as much as many modern Christians and Jews do, in light of that shared tradition of faith is kind of important. Understanding that Muslims, Jews and Christians share the same deity is sort of important.

It's hard, I know. It's easier to classify folks as "good" and "bad" and then hate on the "bad" ones and praise the "good" ones, but the situation in the Middle East is long past such simplistic labels, and in fact, that desire to use simple labels as opposed to understanding the factors that have brought us to this place has only continued the cycles of violence and reactionism. The reductionism is the enemy, and not just on the part of Fundamentalist Muslims, but all around the table, in nations in Europe, in Asia, in the US. And at some point we really need to put down the Idiot Stick that people seem Hells bent on beating ideas out of their heads with, on all those sides...

dickfreckle:It's disturbing how the press has dropped the ball in recent years, treating every wingnut as if they're an expert on the chosen topic. Since when have we been presenting "all sides" when that means tacitly suggesting that the 2+2=13 crowd has as valid a point as those who believe 2+2=4?

They do it because the press is the now the "Media" and the "Media" is big business. The "Media" lets morans like this have their own soapbox because people watch it. Those of us who think they are evil, idiot farks watch it because we hate them. Those who think like the evil idiot farks watch it because it validates their evil idiot farkery.

I don't know why anybody would believe that the USA is in any danger of falling under Muslim religious law. Given that there are just a tiny bit more Jews than Muslims in the USA, roughly 2.2% Jews vs. about 2% Muslims, you'd think we'd be more in danger of falling under Halakha than Sharia, and it's easier to find Kosher food than Halal. (It's a good thing that the Qu'ran allows believers to eat the food of other People of the Book; an Orthodox Jew visiting Lexington, KY might well be SOL at any local restaurant, as few if any Orthodox Jews live here and there's no Orthodox shul though there is a Chabad House near the UK campus.)

Actually the Jewish and Muslim views of God are far more similar to each other than either is the Trinitarian Xians -- for one thing both view worshiping a man as a god is blasphemy and polytheism -- yet you hear more about America's so-called "Judeo-Christan heritage." This is hogwash. The Jewish and Muslim religions really stand together against the True American Creed, i.e bowing low to the the Almighty Dollar while putting Jesus Fish on your SUV; as such all the truly Abrahamic faiths (including also the Karaites, the Samaritans and perhaps the Jehovah's Witnesses) are subversive as all get-out. Even militant atheism is more American than the strictly monotheistic belief in one universal and transcendent Deity.

But why should a devotee of either major party ever need to apply rational inquiry to learn the truth about anything? Believing that it really matters whether the POTUS is a Democrat or a Republican is as counterfactual as believing in Santa, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, but there's no way you'll find that obvious fact in the MSM or the standard public school curricula.

/Why yes, I have been drinking this evening. Want to see me light a belch?

It's disturbing how the press has dropped the ball in recent years, treating every wingnut as if they're an expert on the chosen topic. Since when have we been presenting "all sides" when that means tacitly suggesting that the 2+2=13 crowd has as valid a point as those who believe 2+2=4?

In the day, the Bachmann brigade weren't hailed as an alternative opinion. They were ignored, and certainly never featured on cable 'news' discussion panels as experts in the field.

jso2897:It's like the "Obammy gonna take yer guns" shiat. Keep the stupid trailer trash worrying about Ahkmed down at the Seven Eleven instead of the ruling class who are farking their assholes bloody as we speak. Keep the stupids thinkin' about anything but who is REALLY screwing them.

Need to add "Muslims" to Otis's list of imaginary "guys who are ruining my life" list

FlashHarry:farking assholes. i'm no fan of religion - any religion. but i think their hatred is based more in racism than religion. if most muslims were white, i doubt we'd be having this conversation.

I think you're being too forgiving. Race and color aren't helping in the case of Muslims. But there's no limit to their intolerance and outright hate. Crap, alot of them don't even think Methodists are true Protestants.

TFA: "Muslim leaders are often angrier about terrorism than anyone else because they have to defend themselves on a daily basis, he said, but they don't let that anger show in public."

THIS. This is the problem. THIS is why people don't get taken seriously when they assert that most Muslims oppose terrorism.

Muslim leaders should be angry about terrorism NOT because it paints them in a bad light, but because people who subscribe to the religious/cultural institution of which they are leaders are f'ing killing people. And no - it's NOT enough to be privately, quietly "angry". (If you get angry at something that a child in your kindergarten does but don't speak up and tell the class that his actions were wrong, it will have no effect on their perception of his behavior and so the value of your anger is nil -- no matter how much you claim to feel it.)

So long as Muslim leaders are "angry" about terrorism because it's inconvenient and not because it's abhorrent, and as long as they keep quiet instead of speaking out and setting an example for their followers, people have every legitimate right to their skepticism/cynicism about the attitudes of the Muslim community at large toward terrorism.

I don't like any religions at all, including Islam. There's just this cognitive disconnect. I've known people who, otherwise appearing normal and intelligent, are fervent believers who can't accept any other concept about their origins or future (big bang and a dirt nap?)

Interesting. Except the above poster so far, it's like all the fark atheists who were posting pretty loudly in the Charlie Brown Christmas thread suddenly just disappeared. I thought any possible attempt by religion to mix with government is wrong (Sharia would be that situation - the govt would accomodate it as a legal system within our secular legal system) no matter if it's Christian, Muslim, Buddhism, etc. etc.

I believe in this really radical concept. It's called freedom of religion. What that means is that everyone is equally free to his or her own religious beliefs or to have no religious views at all. What that requires is that the government stay the hell out of religion so as to not impose the religious beliefs of one person or a group of people on another. There can be no freedom of religion if the government is imposing any religious beliefs on the people.

So, yes, obviously, that means Sharia through government is a no go. But that does not mean that I don't think Muslims have ANY less of a right in the US (or anywhere) to practice in their personal lives their religious beliefs than do Christians, Jews, Hindus or any other religion. Personally, my mind just doesn't grasp how someone could take any one of the thousands of religious beliefs in human history and believe it is the one that is True. However, I also believe in freedom of thought, speech, expression, and religion, so I don't believe I have the right to dictate my non-belief onto others personally or through my government. I just wish religious fundamentalists believed in giving everyone else that same respect/rights.

SithLord:sammyk: Meh, they haven't won anything. In fact they have put themselves in a position that will lose in the long run. Hysteria is never permanent. Continuing this irrational fear mongering will only marginalize them further as time goes on.

Yeah. Let's just ask the residents of Constantinople what they think of the Religion of Peace.

You do realize that the first time Constantinople fell it was to the Christian 4th Crusade? The ignorance of people never ceases to amaze me.

BSABSVR:r the controversy over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, which mushroomed into a national crisis after blogger Pam Geller captured the media's attention despite having a tiny audience and a propensity to compare Muslim-tolerant Jews to Nazi sympathizers or suggest that critical journalists are training to be suicide bombers. If the media hadn't paid attention to them, would they have mattered?

So what can be done to break this feedback loop?

The media could actually do their jobs and report on what people do and say. Rather than refer to Pamela geller as an "anti-jihad blogger" (oh how goddamn brave you are), or a "conservative activist", she could be described as someone who compares her opponents to Nazis and who thinks Obama is Malcolm X's son.

Michele Bachmann could be referred to as the woman who thinks most liberal organizations should be investigated for anti-American activities, rather than "conservative firebrand" or "congressional ally to the Tea Party movement".

Stop treating everything like "he said-she said" and do your jobs.

sammyk:Meh, they haven't won anything. In fact they have put themselves in a position that will lose in the long run. Hysteria is never permanent. Continuing this irrational fear mongering will only marginalize them further as time goes on.

Meh, they haven't won anything. In fact they have put themselves in a position that will lose in the long run. Hysteria is never permanent. Continuing this irrational fear mongering will only marginalize them further as time goes on.

I have neighbors who are moderates. They give me hope; they believe in Allah, but are terrible Muslims by strict standards (smoke, occasionally drink, but they try to keep the other laws.) They are fantastic, caring, giving, wonderful people. Because they are "bad" Muslims, they're awesome human beings. It's a shame that it's that way, but I trust people like them to be decent. Just because 5/6 of their family were murdered by "christians" they haven't used that as an excuse to hate me. They don't try to convert me either; they just want to be good people, and who can get mad at anyone for that? As long as they choose to be good citizens and keep their ways to themselves, and I do the same, it's all good. Its the assholes like the power-mad Imams and Jerry Falwell types that stir shiat up and start the problems. If it came down to it, I'd be good with killing a Falwell for every Imam my neighbors would take out, but I know no one could ever agree on how to make that happen, so I'm okay with us the way we are now, as long as they agree to keep it that way. Secular rule of law with religious input, but controlled by common sense absolutes across the board and the current limitations seems to be working for all of us now, so why screw with that? If the Muslims don't like it they can go back to a Sharia country and make changes there if they grow tired of the bullshiat. It worked for us, and it wish it would work for them.

When Muslims outnumber you, you need to be afraid. They kill their own. Therefore they won't hesitate to kill you if it comes down to it. Every country where there has been an "Arab Spring" has now seen the extremists make a power grab. Every. One.

In Egypt, a country that has had a decades-long uneasy truce with the tolerated Christian Orthodox minority, the current power-grabbing Ultra-conservatives have taken more power than they agreed to, and have completely written the Christians out of all governance and government protection. It's only a matter of time before the previously thinly veiled hostilities turn into a run for exterminations. It happened in Sudan. It's happening in Iraq. Syria is a freaking free-for all. The asshole Serbs were so tired of the Bosnians shiat that they went Medieval on their asses and tried to kill them all (way to follow the Bible guys!) but after the whole Ottoman oppression, it's easy to see how it came to that, even if their return murders were equally wrong.

Anti-Muslim attitudes are now much higher than they were immediately following 9/11.

As well they should be. Right after 9/11 I went along with the 'its just the extremists and the terrorists', but my opinion of Islam now could not be any lower. I may not like the Christians, and I may consider what they promote disgusting, but they don't fly in to violent rampages and riots at the drop of a hat. I'm tired of being told that I have to be sensitive of the feelings of Muslims when they don't give a good damn about the feelings of anyone else. With them, it's "It's our way or a violent rampage", and you know what I say?

I say, screw you and your bronze age bullshiat. We're going to have free speech, and that includes the speech that insults, belittles and denigrates your backwards barbaric belief system, and if you don't like it that's just fine but if you start going on little rampages to get your way somebody needs to beat you freaking senseless until the only thing you will say is "Yes, you have the right to say that as much as we don't like it".

Incidentally, there is no such thing as Islamophobia. Wake up and look at the world around you.

A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. In the event the phobia cannot be avoided entirely, the sufferer will endure the situation or object with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities.

There is nothing disproportionate or irrational about taking a look at the actions of Muslims all over the world and being disgusted by them. That's called common sense.

KillerAttackParrot:SithLord: sammyk: Meh, they haven't won anything. In fact they have put themselves in a position that will lose in the long run. Hysteria is never permanent. Continuing this irrational fear mongering will only marginalize them further as time goes on.

Yeah. Let's just ask the residents of Constantinople what they think of the Religion of Peace.

You do realize that the first time Constantinople fell it was to the Christian 4th Crusade? The ignorance of people never ceases to amaze me.

And to be fair, when the Ottomans did take it in the 15th century, the first thing their sultan did after the obligatory rape and pillage was to allow Christians and Jews to carry on with their own places of worship, bring in traders, merchants and craftsmen, and turned it back into a thriving city. Heck, the average Christian probably found his life a lot more stable in Ottoman Istanbul than in, say, Paris or London. Likely a lot cleaner. And the Jews in the city could go about their daily business without worrying about being hunted for sport.

The One True TheDavid : The Unitarian Universalists not only ordain homosexuals, they have no problem marrying them either. Is this a "mainline" denomination is up for some debate, despite being one of the fastest growing denominations in the US.

There are several ministries in the US that depart from their official councils to uphold marriage equality, and that is sort of one of the hallmarks of Protestant denominations is that ability to disagree and continue on.

kbotc:somedude210: If only we had made it a requirement when we gave the rights to the TV wavelengths, that all channels had to show 1 hour of non-commercialized news. Imagine what life could've been like....

Non-commercialized news? Like CSPAN? I mean, unless you simply state facts after each other, you're inputting a bias. This has gotten more extreme as time has gone on, but it's impossible to separate bias from news reporting.

Actually, news bias used to be much worse than it is now. Didn't your American history classes talk about Yellow Journalism?

Diogenes:FlashHarry: farking assholes. i'm no fan of religion - any religion. but i think their hatred is based more in racism than religion. if most muslims were white, i doubt we'd be having this conversation.

I think you're being too forgiving. Race and color aren't helping in the case of Muslims. But there's no limit to their intolerance and outright hate. Crap, alot of them don't even think Methodists are true Protestants.

Yeah. Methodists haven't signed on for burning the homogheys yet, so they're suspect.

Let's face it. There is always going to be a certain percentage of people who will rabidly hate, demonize, loathe, despise, and abhor anyone who isn't exactly like them. For the moment, in this country, they're in the minority. You wouldn't know that by the way they carry on, though.

The One True TheDavid:COMALite J: The One True TheDavid: trivial use of my dark powers: Diogenes: FlashHarry: ...

This, the fact that they refuse to admit that Jesus of Nazareth was fully human and only adopted by God after his baptism by John on the Jordan River, and their heinous papist practice of "baptising" infants who cannot know what is happening let alone accept it, are why I view them as heretics. And don't give me that Paul nonsense: the so-called Epistles of Paul, the Book of Acts and the "Gospel" of John are spurious later accretions canonized for Roman political reasons....

What about the Gospel of Luke, written by the author of the Book of Acts?

Prove it. And you do know there's more than one Paul, right?

The synoptic gospels are really just versions redactions of the long-vanished Gospel of the Hebrews, with a bit of inevitable local flavor.This is in keeping with the pro-Roman church fathers' decision to view earlier Judaizing gospels as noncanonical or heretical, by which they meant they encouraged doctrines that too closely resembled the Judaism that the Church was adamantly and vociferously declaring its difference from. The Jewish faith could never be the ideological glue of of a pagan Empire, unlike its Hejazi offspring.

Gospel of the Hebrews? Prove it.

As for Luke = Acts:

The Gospel According to SaintLUKE

CHAPTER 1

MANY have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled¹ among us,2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.⋮

CHAPTER 24

⋮50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them.51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

The ACTSof the ApostlesCHAPTER 1

IN my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

• Okay, right off the bat, we see that both books are addressed to ‶Theophilus" (who may have been a specific person, or the author′s generic name for any ‶friend of God" [the literal meaning of that Greek name]). No other Bible books are addressed to Theophilus.

• The Gospel According to Luke ends with Jesus being taken up into Heaven (none of the other Canonical Gospels actually show this, unless you count the long ending to Mark [starting with 16:9] which most scholars now recognize as a spurious later addition, as it does not exist in the older manuscripts and does not match the style of the rest of the book). and Acts begins with its author telling Theophilus that his former book ended with precisely that, covering exactly what the Gospel According to Luke actually does cover.

• The author(s) of both books is/are (an/both) elitist scholar(s) with (an) inflated opinion(s) of his/their own competence as (an) historian(s). Luke's author starts out effectively claiming that his ‶careful investigation of everything" made his ‶orderly account" superior to the similar works of actual ‶eyewitnesses and servants of the word."

And yet, the actual historical competence of both books are lacking. Luke's author starts right off after that introduction claiming that Elizabeth, wife of Zacharias, became pregnant with John the Baptist while Herod the Great still ruled Judea. Yet, before that chapter is over, Mary is also pregnant with Jesus, and visits Elizabeth while John is still in her womb, who leaps for joy in said womb at the approach of the at least embryonic if not fetal Savior and His mother. In the very next chapter, just as Jesus is about to be born, Luke says that this is happening while Quirinius was governor of Syria and during the taxation census Cæsar Augustus. Indeed, this was the whole reason that the Holy Family left Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for Jesus to be born there according to the author of Luke! And yet, we know from history that Herod died in 4 B.C.E. (death marked by an eclipse, and we can time those to the fraction of a second accuracy millennia into the past or future), that his passing allowed his incompetent son Archelaus to ascend to the throne (as Matthew's author specifically mentions), and he reigned for a full decade before the merchants and other wealthy citizens had had enough of his horrific mismanagement of the economy and appealed to Cæsar Augustus, who deposed him and had Quirinius institute the taxation census to determine who owed what to whom. Sorry, but pregnancies last nine months, not ten years.

Luke's author also has the men of Nazareth later attempt to execute Jesus by ‶[taking] him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff." As you can verify for yourself by pointing Google Earth at ‶Nazareth, Israel" with Terrain View on and no exaggeration, while the Old City of Nazareth is indeed built on a plateau, it has gently sloping sides and no cliffs ― certainly none high and steep enough that the people living there would honestly believe, likely from experience, that anyone hurled from it would have near-zero chance of survival (or what would be the point of trying to execute Him that way?).

There are many more such examples.

The author of Acts is, of course, best buds with Paul. Indeed, the whole structure of Acts appears to be about the transfer of the leadership of the primitive Christian Church from Peter to Paul. Paul does an analogous miracle for each and every miracle that Peter earlier does in that book, in the same order (seven miracles for each).

And yet, the author of Acts thinks that he knows Paul′s own origin story better than Paul himself does, despite later quoting Paul′s own account thereof twice in his own book! In his own account in Acts 9, he says that the men which journeyed with Paul stood speechless in fear because they heard a voice but saw no man. But when Paul twice recounts this story in later chapters of Acts (e.g. 22:9) and the author of Acts records his account, he contradicts both points: Paul says that he and his companions had all fallen to the ground, and that they were afraid because they saw the light but heard not the Voice!

These are the same sorts of textual analysis that you′d use to claim multiple Pauls and that the Synoptic Gospels are from the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Joe Blowme:How is this sad subby? Would anyone here really want to live under sharia? Its like saying you want to live in nazi germany. How can a liberal site like salon and fark not see the eveil that is sharia?

Nobody is defending Sharia.

The point is that making laws banning it is, best case, redundant because of the first or worst case illegal because of the first (singling out one religion).

Seems that many folks who follow the "Judeo-Christian tradition" (or whatever the fark the evangelicals are calling it these days) have manged to terrorize plenty of innocent people too. What's our excuse?

I have neighbors who are moderates. They give me hope; they believe in Allah, but are terrible Muslims by strict standards (smoke, occasionally drink, but they try to keep the other laws.) They are fantastic, caring, giving, wonderful people. Because they are "bad" Muslims, they're awesome human beings. It's a shame that it's that way, but I trust people like them to be decent. Just because 5/6 of their family were murdered by "christians" they haven't used that as an excuse to hate me. They don't try to convert me either; they just want to be good people, and who can get mad at anyone for that? As long as they choose to be good citizens and keep their ways to themselves, and I do the same, it's all good. Its the assholes like the power-mad Imams and Jerry Falwell types that stir shiat up and start the problems. If it came down to it, I'd be good with killing a Falwell for every Imam my neighbors would take out, but I know no one could ever agree on how to make that happen, so I'm okay with us the way we are now, as long as they agree to keep it that way. Secular rule of law with religious input, but controlled by common sense absolutes across the board and the current limitations seems to be working for all of us now, so why screw with that? If the Muslims don't like it they can go back to a Sharia country and make changes there if they grow tired of the bullshiat. It worked for us, and it wish it would work for them.

So in other words, you have no response to what I asked you? If it pleases you to fall for this shiat, by all means, do so. It's like the "Obammy gonna take yer guns" shiat. Keep the stupid trailer trash worrying about Ahkmed down at the Seven Eleven instead of the ruling class who are farking their assholes bloody as we speak. Keep the stupids thinkin' about anything but who is REALLY screwing them.America's real enemies wear nice suits, and have nice, white, smiling faces. They are stabbing you in the back right now, and stealing your heritage and your children's future - and, naturally, they want your dumb ass to be afraid of some f**king goatherd. And you buy it.Dumbass. Worry about your REAL enemies. Don't be a gullible, stupid sucker.

thespindrifter:Convert or die, that was, is, and always will be the message of the prophet Mohammed. Even if you run into a group of "decent", moderate/secular Muslims, they will likely allow the leadership to make non-Muslims into second-class citizens, and how many generations before the moderates die off or are forcibly replaced by violent ones?

When Muslims outnumber you, you need to be afraid. They kill their own. Therefore they won't hesitate to kill you if it comes down to it.

Turkey? Indonesia? Both democracies with Muslim majorities. Indonesia has significant minorities who aren't Muslim. Turkey is a NATO ally. They are not Arab Spring countries, by they are not barbaric Muslim regimes.

Libya and Tunisia so far haven't gone over the extremist cliff, and they are both front and center in the Arab Spring. It certainly hasn't been a smooth process in either country, and there are extremist elements most certainly present. However, the reaction after the attack on the American consulate in Libya by the people there was not a concert of Death to America protests. Quite the opposite. There were demonstrations against extremists (and mobs overrunning extremist hold outs and demanding that they be disarmed) and demonstrations expressing sorrow for the deaths of the Americans.

I'm certainly not a fan of the Muslim Brotherhood as I'm not a fan of any fundamentalist religious movements which which to impose their religion the government and the people through the government. However, it is still to be seen exactly what Morsi and his type will do in Egypt. He has not yet gone all Islamist on his people and country. He still could, but that's not what has happened yet. It's disappointing to see the Islamists doing the writing of the new constitution, but it is yet to be seen how they will govern. Moderate Islamists have been in control of the government in our NATO ally Turkey for some years now, and they haven't yet gone extremist. Again, if I were a Turkish citizen I certainly wouldn't be voting for a religious party (just like I won't vote for Republicans for much the same reason), but they are freely elected, and they haven't been going extremist as of now.

But yes, there are certainly very backward, religiously fundamentalist governments in the Muslim world (although, the secular dictatorships are disappearing even though it's not clear with what they will be replaced). There are strange monarchs such as the Saudis who are pretty worldly yet allow religious fundamentalist principles rule they day in their lands. So certainly not utopia.

One of the amusing things though is to watch the religious, conservative wing in the US react in horror and anger at the election in Egypt of the religious, conservative wing.

The problem with this idea that somehow there are "good" muslims/christians/adherents of any religion and "bad" whatevers is that it's wrong. Religion isn't inherently good or bad. Religion is what it is. This concept that there are "good" Muslims who like America and "bad" Muslims who want to destroy America, or "hate us for our freedumz" is just the latest gloss on a really old idea, which is that the "good" whoevers are the ones that agree with "us" and the "bad" whoevers are the ones we're over there fighting and if only the "bad" ones were all gone, we could deal with the "good" ones. It's not a new idea.

Unfortunately, this idea that somehow the "bad" Muslims are the only ones who oppose American intrusion into their countries and American influence in their culture and Westernization of their beliefs isn't just an oversimplification; it means that anyone who presents any opposition at all gets tossed in the "bad" camp, no matter how reasonable and non-violent their opposition is. This tends to prevent any diplomatic resolution of conflict, and means that unless they agree with us, they are de facto "bad". It's just the same COMMIE BAD! NON-COMMIE GOOD! dichotomy that drove our foreign policy in the Cold War, or the Christians vs. Infidels that drove the Crusades. And the same inflexible good vs. bad that drives Israeli/Palestinian "diplomacy" too, and has nothing to do with religion.

Religion isn't the cause. It's just a handy excuse or hook to hang the conflict on. As long as anyone who resents American intrusion into Iran gets tossed into the "bad Muslim" basket, (because they oppose us, ergo, they are bad Muslims) there can't be any reasonable discussion of why a "good" Muslim might have legitimate grievances. It all gets masked by the religious nonsense. Just like 150 years ago, the reasonable discussion of why the "good" Indians might not like the British ordering them around in their own country got masked by the religious nonsense of the grease on the musket cartridges that led to the Sepoy Mutiny (caused by those "bad" Indians and their silly religious notions). Or like 900 years ago, reasonable discussion about whether Genoan seaports in Palestine could be taxed by Saladin got overrun by the Crusades. It was nothing to do with religion. If it did, the 4th Crusade would not have ended with a bunch of Christian knights sacking the Christian city of Constantinople.

Mrbogey:They win because when you portray the anti-sharia side as being anti-Muslim what do you expect?

Shariah law has some pretty brutal allowances. I don't understand how people who criticize the crazy things that orthodox Jews do try and concern troll over disdain for the crazy things permitted under Shariah.

Whether it's dogshiat, pigshiat, or chickenshiat, I'd rather not eat any of it.

FlashHarry:farking assholes. i'm no fan of religion - any religion. but i think their hatred is based more in racism than religion. if most muslims were white, i doubt we'd be having this conversation.

Exactly! That's why we all hate the Nazis, even to this day, 80 years later. Because they were what color?

The good news is that every single one of these assholes will die someday. They're a dying breed. Someday people like this will be viewed with just as much derision as white supremacists are viewed today. They used to be accepted too, but the rest of the world passed them by. Same thing will happen to people like Bachmann.

This, the fact that they refuse to admit that Jesus of Nazareth was fully human and only adopted by God after his baptism by John on the Jordan River, and their heinous papist practice of "baptising" infants who cannot know what is happening let alone accept it, are why I view them as heretics. And don't give me that Paul nonsense: the so-called Epistles of Paul, the Book of Acts and the "Gospel" of John are spurious later accretions canonized for Roman political reasons....

What about the Gospel of Luke, written by the author of the Book of Acts?

Prove it. And you do know there's more than one Paul, right?

The synoptic gospels are really just versions redactions of the long-vanished Gospel of the Hebrews, with a bit of inevitable local flavor.This is in keeping with the pro-Roman church fathers' decision to view earlier Judaizing gospels as noncanonical or heretical, by which they meant they encouraged doctrines that too closely resembled the Judaism that the Church was adamantly and vociferously declaring its difference from. The Jewish faith could never be the ideological glue of of a pagan Empire, unlike its Hejazi offspring.

It's disturbing how the press has dropped the ball in recent years, treating every wingnut as if they're an expert on the chosen topic. Since when have we been presenting "all sides" when that means tacitly suggesting that the 2+2=13 crowd has as valid a point as those who believe 2+2=4?

They do it because the press is the now the "Media" and the "Media" is big business. The "Media" lets morans like this have their own soapbox because people watch it. Those of us who think they are evil, idiot farks watch it because we hate them. Those who think like the evil idiot farks watch it because it validates their evil idiot farkery.

I don't own a TV or listen to talk radio, nor do I regularly read the mainstream press. Most of the time my sense of what Americans are supposed to "know" and regard as important is supplied by Fark, by the articles linked to and the discussions they provoke. E.g. I've never seen a single Lindsay Lo'an vehicle, nor have I wittingly listened to anything by Baldy Spears or Hannah Montana. So of course I have no idea who Michelle Bachman and Pam Geller are except that "liberal" Farkers dislike them.

Too bad for y'all that the vast majority of you repeatedly discount my opinions and even my right to opine because my perspective doesn't fit the "Reality" you get from TV. Oh well. At least it's free.

They haven't "won" anything, but simply put a bunch of irrational fears into low-information morons whose kind are dying out. The younger generations care nothing for those farktards and their bullshiat. The scaremongering about "creeping sharia" is working on us about as well as the threats of a "Communist, Kenyan, radical, president".

Anyway, I would call Pam Geller a coont, but that would be insulting to coonts.

MaudlinMutantMollusk:BSABSVR: r the controversy over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, which mushroomed into a national crisis after blogger Pam Geller captured the media's attention despite having a tiny audience and a propensity to compare Muslim-tolerant Jews to Nazi sympathizers or suggest that critical journalists are training to be suicide bombers. If the media hadn't paid attention to them, would they have mattered?

So what can be done to break this feedback loop?

The media could actually do their jobs and report on what people do and say. Rather than refer to Pamela geller as an "anti-jihad blogger" (oh how goddamn brave you are), or a "conservative activist", she could be described as someone who compares her opponents to Nazis and who thinks Obama is Malcolm X's son.

Michele Bachmann could be referred to as the woman who thinks most liberal organizations should be investigated for anti-American activities, rather than "conservative firebrand" or "congressional ally to the Tea Party movement".

Stop treating everything like "he said-she said" and do your jobs.

sammyk: Meh, they haven't won anything. In fact they have put themselves in a position that will lose in the long run. Hysteria is never permanent. Continuing this irrational fear mongering will only marginalize them further as time goes on.

SO.MUCH.THIS.

/stop treating raging lunatics like they have valid points

And this again.

There just aren't always two sides to every issue. The media doesn't always have to give fair time and equal treatment to nutjobs when it's obvious they are nutjobs. And just because they can "get their message out via social media and the Internet" doesn't mean you HAVE to interview them for airtime on MSNBC.

trivial use of my dark powers:Diogenes: FlashHarry: farking assholes. i'm no fan of religion - any religion. but i think their hatred is based more in racism than religion. if most muslims were white, i doubt we'd be having this conversation.

I think you're being too forgiving. Race and color aren't helping in the case of Muslims. But there's no limit to their intolerance and outright hate. Crap, alot of them don't even think Methodists are true Protestants.

Yeah. Methodists haven't signed on for burning the homogheys yet, so they're suspect.

AHEM.

From the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church:

¶ 304.3

While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. [emp. mine] Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals1 are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.21. "Self-avowed practicing homosexual" is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual. See Judicial Council Decisions 702, 708, 722, 725, 764, 844, 984.2. See Judicial Council Decisions 984, 985.

This, the fact that they refuse to admit that Jesus of Nazareth was fully human and only adopted by God after his baptism by John on the Jordan River, and their heinous papist practice of "baptising" infants who cannot know what is happening let alone accept it, are why I view them as heretics. And don't give me that Paul nonsense: the so-called Epistles of Paul, the Book of Acts and the "Gospel" of John are spurious later accretions canonized for Roman political reasons. But anyway.

As noted above, the UMC is fully and firmly on board in denying church office and full recognition to "self-avowed practicing homosexuals." Most Methodists I've met are nice enough and would not condone queerbashing, and there is a growing minority within the church to scrap the anti-gay stuff, but the enlightened position has not yet gained formal official acceptance by any General Conference.

somedude210:If only we had made it a requirement when we gave the rights to the TV wavelengths, that all channels had to show 1 hour of non-commercialized news. Imagine what life could've been like....

Hell, I don't know a single person in my general age group (mid-to-late 20s) who regularly watches TV news; be it a nightly newscast on the broadcast networks or any of the cable news channels.

Now, plenty of those "cool" bloggers, "edgy" podcasts, and other examples of these hip alternative media outlets (which I read/listen to myself) have their own biases and faults, but I'm pretty sure generation Y at least is largely unaffected by mainstream talking points.

I don't like any religions at all, including Islam. There's just this cognitive disconnect. I've known people who, otherwise appearing normal and intelligent, are fervent believers who can't accept any other concept about their origins or future (big bang and a dirt nap?)

Interesting. Except the above poster so far, it's like all the fark atheists who were posting pretty loudly in the Charlie Brown Christmas thread suddenly just disappeared. I thought any possible attempt by religion to mix with government is wrong (Sharia would be that situation - the govt would accomodate it as a legal system within our secular legal system) no matter if it's Christian, Muslim, Buddhism, etc. etc.

FlashHarry:farking assholes. i'm no fan of religion - any religion. but i think their hatred is based more on the complete incompatibility of Islam with Enlightenment thinkingin racism than religion. if most muslims left the dark ageswere white, i doubt we'd be having this conversation.

kbotc:somedude210: If only we had made it a requirement when we gave the rights to the TV wavelengths, that all channels had to show 1 hour of non-commercialized news. Imagine what life could've been like....

Non-commercialized news? Like CSPAN? I mean, unless you simply state facts after each other, you're inputting a bias. This has gotten more extreme as time has gone on, but it's impossible to separate bias from news reporting.

NPR's hourly news reports are pretty unbias. BBC is fairly unbiased. They'll ask questions, but their intent seems to be more about what the story actually is, than trying to make a story out of nothing

FlashHarry:farking assholes. i'm no fan of religion - any religion. but i think their hatred is based more in racism than religion. if most muslims were white, i doubt we'd be having this conversation.

Right now it's pretty easy to tell a Muslim from a non-Muslim; Muslims are brown and their women wear scarves over their heads, sometimes covering their entire body. (see slashies) Just imagine if half of the 9/11 bombers had brown hair, three had blond hair, a few were black, the leader was a ginger and the rest were Asian, and the group who declared war on the USA could look like any American at all.

By Christmas 2001 there would have been Joe McCarthy 2.0, with all the 21st century technology, all levels of US government on board for anything that would help "save" the country. Worse, it would likely divide the nation by fear that anyone could be a terrorist... even your own family.

So yeah, the racism is bad, but it could be far worse.

/Yes, it's a huge generalization. I used to work with a blond haired, blue eyed former Christian woman who converted to Islam for reasons that she tried to explain to me but made no sense. Something about being a better woman because she's a Muslim now and can wear the veil.

somedude210:If only we had made it a requirement when we gave the rights to the TV wavelengths, that all channels had to show 1 hour of non-commercialized news. Imagine what life could've been like....

Non-commercialized news? Like CSPAN? I mean, unless you simply state facts after each other, you're inputting a bias. This has gotten more extreme as time has gone on, but it's impossible to separate bias from news reporting.

Ennuipoet:dickfreckle: It's disturbing how the press has dropped the ball in recent years, treating every wingnut as if they're an expert on the chosen topic. Since when have we been presenting "all sides" when that means tacitly suggesting that the 2+2=13 crowd has as valid a point as those who believe 2+2=4?

They do it because the press is the now the "Media" and the "Media" is big business. The "Media" lets morans like this have their own soapbox because people watch it. Those of us who think they are evil, idiot farks watch it because we hate them. Those who think like the evil idiot farks watch it because it validates their evil idiot farkery.

Not only that, but when an outlet consistently calls out members of a party that is run by derpmeisters for their derp, i.e. MSNBC, that outlet gets grouped into the same sort of company as Fox News Channel by folks who are desperate to seem "moderate".